Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 431 | control, N = 211 | treatment, N = 221 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 43 | 50.98 ± 12.72 (25 - 72) | 50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72) | 51.60 ± 12.79 (32 - 72) | 0.747 |
gender | 43 | 0.449 | |||
f | 29 (67%) | 13 (62%) | 16 (73%) | ||
m | 14 (33%) | 8 (38%) | 6 (27%) | ||
occupation | 43 | 0.978 | |||
full_time | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
homemaker | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
other | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
part_time | 7 (16%) | 4 (19%) | 3 (14%) | ||
retired | 13 (30%) | 6 (29%) | 7 (32%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
unemploy | 10 (23%) | 5 (24%) | 5 (23%) | ||
marital | 43 | 0.892 | |||
divore | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
married | 8 (19%) | 3 (14%) | 5 (23%) | ||
none | 24 (56%) | 12 (57%) | 12 (55%) | ||
seperation | 3 (7.0%) | 2 (9.5%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
widow | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
edu | 43 | 0.399 | |||
bachelor | 13 (30%) | 5 (24%) | 8 (36%) | ||
diploma | 7 (16%) | 5 (24%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (9.3%) | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
primary | 4 (9.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 10 (23%) | 7 (33%) | 3 (14%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
fam_income | 43 | 0.881 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 4 (9.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
18001_20000 | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (21%) | 6 (29%) | 3 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 5 (12%) | 2 (9.5%) | 3 (14%) | ||
4001_6000 | 6 (14%) | 3 (14%) | 3 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
below_2000 | 4 (9.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
medication | 43 | 37 (86%) | 17 (81%) | 20 (91%) | 0.412 |
onset_duration | 43 | 16.62 ± 12.51 (0 - 56) | 17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56) | 15.40 ± 10.48 (0 - 35) | 0.519 |
onset_age | 43 | 34.36 ± 12.65 (15 - 62) | 32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55) | 36.20 ± 13.73 (15 - 62) | 0.334 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 431 | control, N = 211 | treatment, N = 221 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 43 | 3.44 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5) | 3.50 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.761 |
recovery_stage_b | 43 | 18.40 ± 2.67 (9 - 23) | 18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23) | 18.36 ± 2.48 (14 - 23) | 0.938 |
ras_confidence | 43 | 30.70 ± 4.78 (19 - 40) | 30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40) | 31.14 ± 5.05 (22 - 39) | 0.545 |
ras_willingness | 43 | 12.30 ± 2.05 (7 - 15) | 12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15) | 12.32 ± 2.30 (7 - 15) | 0.959 |
ras_goal | 43 | 17.67 ± 3.08 (12 - 24) | 17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23) | 17.77 ± 3.13 (12 - 24) | 0.833 |
ras_reliance | 43 | 13.44 ± 3.11 (8 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18) | 13.64 ± 3.43 (8 - 20) | 0.680 |
ras_domination | 43 | 10.16 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15) | 9.41 ± 2.79 (3 - 14) | 0.036 |
symptom | 43 | 29.67 ± 10.20 (14 - 56) | 28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45) | 30.45 ± 11.66 (15 - 56) | 0.614 |
slof_work | 43 | 22.98 ± 5.03 (10 - 30) | 23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30) | 22.55 ± 5.32 (10 - 30) | 0.571 |
slof_relationship | 43 | 26.33 ± 5.81 (11 - 35) | 26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35) | 25.73 ± 5.82 (11 - 35) | 0.496 |
satisfaction | 43 | 21.23 ± 6.88 (5 - 30) | 19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29) | 22.55 ± 6.93 (5 - 30) | 0.204 |
mhc_emotional | 43 | 11.58 ± 3.55 (4 - 18) | 11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17) | 12.00 ± 4.05 (4 - 18) | 0.435 |
mhc_social | 43 | 14.93 ± 4.80 (6 - 25) | 15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25) | 14.68 ± 5.13 (6 - 23) | 0.733 |
mhc_psychological | 43 | 22.28 ± 6.22 (6 - 36) | 21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33) | 22.95 ± 6.33 (6 - 36) | 0.473 |
resilisnce | 43 | 16.95 ± 4.71 (6 - 25) | 16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24) | 17.05 ± 5.04 (7 - 25) | 0.897 |
social_provision | 43 | 13.67 ± 3.29 (5 - 20) | 13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20) | 13.91 ± 3.64 (5 - 19) | 0.638 |
els_value_living | 43 | 17.14 ± 3.04 (5 - 23) | 16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20) | 17.41 ± 3.71 (5 - 23) | 0.558 |
els_life_fulfill | 43 | 13.07 ± 3.38 (4 - 18) | 12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17) | 13.91 ± 3.25 (4 - 18) | 0.096 |
els | 43 | 30.21 ± 5.78 (9 - 40) | 29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36) | 31.32 ± 6.57 (9 - 40) | 0.201 |
social_connect | 43 | 26.84 ± 10.18 (8 - 48) | 27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45) | 26.64 ± 11.18 (8 - 48) | 0.897 |
shs_agency | 43 | 14.19 ± 4.82 (3 - 20) | 13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20) | 14.64 ± 5.23 (3 - 20) | 0.537 |
shs_pathway | 43 | 16.70 ± 3.73 (4 - 22) | 16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21) | 17.18 ± 4.16 (4 - 22) | 0.390 |
shs | 43 | 30.88 ± 7.90 (7 - 42) | 29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41) | 31.82 ± 8.56 (7 - 42) | 0.434 |
esteem | 43 | 12.49 ± 1.24 (10 - 15) | 12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14) | 12.32 ± 1.39 (10 - 15) | 0.364 |
mlq_search | 43 | 15.21 ± 3.38 (3 - 21) | 15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21) | 15.23 ± 3.53 (3 - 20) | 0.972 |
mlq_presence | 43 | 13.67 ± 4.04 (3 - 21) | 14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19) | 13.23 ± 4.87 (3 - 21) | 0.464 |
mlq | 43 | 28.88 ± 6.77 (6 - 41) | 29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40) | 28.45 ± 7.45 (6 - 41) | 0.676 |
empower | 43 | 19.95 ± 4.33 (6 - 28) | 20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24) | 19.82 ± 4.96 (6 - 28) | 0.837 |
ismi_resistance | 43 | 14.93 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19) | 14.91 ± 3.31 (5 - 20) | 0.960 |
ismi_discrimation | 43 | 11.19 ± 3.16 (5 - 19) | 12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17) | 10.41 ± 3.19 (5 - 19) | 0.100 |
sss_affective | 43 | 9.49 ± 4.28 (3 - 18) | 9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15) | 9.05 ± 4.98 (3 - 18) | 0.494 |
sss_behavior | 43 | 9.49 ± 4.45 (3 - 18) | 10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18) | 8.82 ± 4.64 (3 - 18) | 0.318 |
sss_cognitive | 43 | 7.77 ± 4.01 (3 - 18) | 7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15) | 8.05 ± 4.41 (3 - 18) | 0.647 |
sss | 43 | 26.74 ± 11.84 (9 - 54) | 27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44) | 25.91 ± 13.63 (9 - 54) | 0.642 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.38 | 0.263 | 2.87, 3.90 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.119 | 0.368 | -0.602, 0.840 | 0.748 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.779 | 0.551 | -0.301, 1.86 | 0.170 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.293 | 0.852 | -1.96, 1.38 | 0.734 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.4 | 0.587 | 17.3, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.065 | 0.820 | -1.67, 1.54 | 0.937 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.624 | 0.553 | -1.71, 0.461 | 0.292 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.842 | 0.873 | -0.869, 2.55 | 0.362 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.2 | 1.032 | 28.2, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.898 | 1.443 | -1.93, 3.73 | 0.537 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.502 | 0.830 | -1.12, 2.13 | 0.561 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.296 | 1.310 | -2.27, 2.86 | 0.826 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.442 | 11.4, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.617 | -1.18, 1.24 | 0.958 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.594 | 0.636 | -1.84, 0.652 | 0.374 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.830 | 1.000 | -1.13, 2.79 | 0.427 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.6 | 0.685 | 16.2, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.201 | 0.958 | -1.68, 2.08 | 0.835 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.109 | 0.749 | -1.36, 1.58 | 0.888 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.13 | 1.180 | -3.45, 1.18 | 0.360 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.681 | 11.9, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.398 | 0.952 | -1.47, 2.27 | 0.678 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.030 | 0.472 | -0.894, 0.954 | 0.951 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.653 | 0.745 | -0.806, 2.11 | 0.404 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.500 | 9.97, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.54 | 0.699 | -2.91, -0.174 | 0.032 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.962 | 0.997 | -2.92, 0.991 | 0.345 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.57 | 1.548 | -0.469, 5.60 | 0.110 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.095 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 2.246 | 24.5, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.60 | 3.140 | -4.56, 7.75 | 0.614 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.22 | 2.164 | -5.46, 3.02 | 0.587 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.957 | 3.413 | -5.73, 7.65 | 0.786 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 23.4 | 1.095 | 21.3, 25.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.883 | 1.530 | -3.88, 2.12 | 0.567 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.55 | 0.614 | -2.75, -0.347 | 0.035 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.991 | 0.969 | -0.909, 2.89 | 0.336 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 1.259 | 24.5, 29.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.23 | 1.760 | -4.67, 2.22 | 0.490 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -2.59 | 0.901 | -4.36, -0.825 | 0.020 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.63 | 1.423 | 0.836, 6.41 | 0.033 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 1.501 | 16.9, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.69 | 2.098 | -1.42, 6.80 | 0.207 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.80 | 1.115 | 0.611, 4.98 | 0.036 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.85 | 1.760 | -5.30, 1.60 | 0.324 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.750 | 9.67, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.857 | 1.049 | -1.20, 2.91 | 0.418 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.44 | 1.313 | -1.14, 4.01 | 0.308 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.649 | 2.054 | -4.68, 3.38 | 0.760 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 1.143 | 13.0, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.509 | 1.597 | -3.64, 2.62 | 0.752 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.88 | 1.838 | -0.728, 6.48 | 0.135 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.78 | 2.883 | -9.43, 1.87 | 0.205 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 1.347 | 18.9, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.38 | 1.883 | -2.31, 5.07 | 0.466 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.76 | 2.351 | -2.85, 6.36 | 0.468 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.50 | 3.678 | -8.71, 5.71 | 0.690 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 1.034 | 14.8, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.188 | 1.445 | -2.64, 3.02 | 0.897 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.398 | 0.645 | -0.866, 1.66 | 0.554 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.44 | 1.019 | -4.43, -0.441 | 0.043 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.733 | 12.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.481 | 1.025 | -1.53, 2.49 | 0.642 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.637 | 0.674 | -1.96, 0.684 | 0.371 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.37 | 1.063 | -0.714, 3.45 | 0.232 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.665 | 15.6, 18.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 0.929 | -1.27, 2.37 | 0.556 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.26 | 0.753 | -0.216, 2.74 | 0.131 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.50 | 1.187 | -3.82, 0.831 | 0.241 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.710 | 10.8, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.72 | 0.993 | -0.227, 3.66 | 0.091 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.48 | 0.759 | -0.007, 2.97 | 0.086 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.62 | 1.197 | -3.96, 0.729 | 0.213 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.060 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 1.240 | 26.6, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.27 | 1.734 | -1.13, 5.67 | 0.198 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.73 | 1.321 | 0.138, 5.32 | 0.071 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.14 | 2.083 | -7.22, 0.948 | 0.169 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 2.244 | 22.6, 31.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.411 | 3.137 | -6.56, 5.74 | 0.896 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.78 | 1.792 | -1.73, 5.29 | 0.349 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.56 | 2.829 | -2.98, 8.11 | 0.391 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 1.067 | 11.6, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.922 | 1.492 | -2.00, 3.85 | 0.540 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.61 | 0.953 | -0.262, 3.47 | 0.130 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.10 | 1.504 | -5.05, 0.844 | 0.198 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.804 | 14.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.991 | 1.123 | -1.21, 3.19 | 0.383 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.988 | 0.764 | -0.508, 2.48 | 0.232 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.11 | 1.205 | -3.47, 1.25 | 0.385 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.736 | 26.5, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.91 | 2.427 | -2.84, 6.67 | 0.435 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.45 | 1.301 | -0.100, 5.00 | 0.096 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.29 | 2.055 | -7.32, 0.736 | 0.147 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.268 | 12.1, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.348 | 0.375 | -1.08, 0.386 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.00 | 0.529 | -0.037, 2.04 | 0.081 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.994 | 0.822 | -2.61, 0.618 | 0.246 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.103 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.762 | 13.7, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.037 | 1.065 | -2.05, 2.12 | 0.973 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.769 | 1.489 | -2.15, 3.69 | 0.613 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.95 | 2.317 | -6.49, 2.59 | 0.411 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 14.1 | 0.893 | 12.4, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.916 | 1.249 | -3.36, 1.53 | 0.468 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.251 | 0.551 | -0.830, 1.33 | 0.660 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.18 | 0.871 | -3.89, -0.473 | 0.036 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.537 | 26.3, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.879 | 2.149 | -5.09, 3.33 | 0.685 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.906 | 1.924 | -2.86, 4.68 | 0.649 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -4.66 | 3.029 | -10.6, 1.28 | 0.156 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 20.1 | 0.950 | 18.2, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.277 | 1.328 | -2.88, 2.33 | 0.836 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.092 | 0.517 | -1.11, 0.922 | 0.863 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.825 | 0.817 | -2.43, 0.777 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.581 | 13.8, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.043 | 0.812 | -1.63, 1.55 | 0.958 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.591 | 0.891 | -2.34, 1.16 | 0.525 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.853 | 1.398 | -1.89, 3.59 | 0.557 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.664 | 10.7, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.59 | 0.928 | -3.41, 0.228 | 0.094 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.29 | 0.819 | -2.89, 0.320 | 0.148 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.08 | 1.290 | -1.45, 3.61 | 0.421 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.061 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.929 | 8.13, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.907 | 1.298 | -3.45, 1.64 | 0.489 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.058 | 0.624 | -1.16, 1.28 | 0.928 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.641 | 0.986 | -2.57, 1.29 | 0.533 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.955 | 8.32, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.37 | 1.335 | -3.99, 1.24 | 0.310 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.52 | 1.067 | -3.61, 0.572 | 0.190 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.19 | 1.681 | -2.10, 4.49 | 0.497 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 7.48 | 0.891 | 5.73, 9.22 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.569 | 1.245 | -1.87, 3.01 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.56 | 0.931 | -0.266, 3.38 | 0.131 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.61 | 1.468 | -5.48, 0.271 | 0.112 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 2.599 | 22.5, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.71 | 3.634 | -8.83, 5.41 | 0.640 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.081 | 2.001 | -4.00, 3.84 | 0.969 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.28 | 3.160 | -7.47, 4.92 | 0.697 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.10) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.87, 3.90], t(47) = 12.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.84], t(47) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.86], t(47) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.55])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.38], t(47) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.28, 19.58], t(47) = 31.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.54], t(47) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.46], t(47) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.55], t(47) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.00])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.22, 32.26], t(47) = 29.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.93, 3.73], t(47) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.13], t(47) = 0.60, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.27, 2.86], t(47) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.42, 13.15], t(47) = 27.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.24], t(47) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.65], t(47) = -0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.79], t(47) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.23, 18.91], t(47) = 25.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.08], t(47) = 0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.58], t(47) = 0.15, p = 0.885; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-3.45, 1.18], t(47) = -0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.90, 14.57], t(47) = 19.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.27], t(47) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.95], t(47) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 9.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.11], t(47) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.97, 11.93], t(47) = 21.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.91, -0.17], t(47) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-2.92, 0.99], t(47) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.57, 95% CI [-0.47, 5.60], t(47) = 1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.45, 33.26], t(47) = 12.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-4.56, 7.75], t(47) = 0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-5.46, 3.02], t(47) = -0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-5.73, 7.65], t(47) = 0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.28, 25.57], t(47) = 21.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.88, 2.12], t(47) = -0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-2.75, -0.35], t(47) = -2.53, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.89], t(47) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.49, 29.42], t(47) = 21.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.67, 2.22], t(47) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.59, 95% CI [-4.36, -0.83], t(47) = -2.88, p = 0.004; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.78, -0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.63, 95% CI [0.84, 6.41], t(47) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.15, 1.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.92, 22.80], t(47) = 13.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-1.42, 6.80], t(47) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.00])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [0.61, 4.98], t(47) = 2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [0.09, 0.73])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.85, 95% CI [-5.30, 1.60], t(47) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.67, 12.61], t(47) = 14.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.20, 2.91], t(47) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.85])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-1.14, 4.01], t(47) = 1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-4.68, 3.38], t(47) = -0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.99])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.95, 17.43], t(47) = 13.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.64, 2.62], t(47) = -0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [-0.73, 6.48], t(47) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.78, 95% CI [-9.43, 1.87], t(47) = -1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.93, 24.21], t(47) = 16.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-2.31, 5.07], t(47) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [-2.85, 6.36], t(47) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-8.71, 5.71], t(47) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.94])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.83, 18.88], t(47) = 16.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.64, 3.02], t(47) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.66], t(47) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.44, 95% CI [-4.43, -0.44], t(47) = -2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-0.99, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [11.99, 14.87], t(47) = 18.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.49], t(47) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.68], t(47) = -0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.71, 3.45], t(47) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.55, 18.16], t(47) = 25.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.37], t(47) = 0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.74], t(47) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.93])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-3.82, 0.83], t(47) = -1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.80, 13.58], t(47) = 17.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.66], t(47) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [-6.51e-03, 2.97], t(47) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.00e-03, 0.91])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.62, 95% CI [-3.96, 0.73], t(47) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.62, 31.48], t(47) = 23.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-1.13, 5.67], t(47) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.01])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.73, 95% CI [0.14, 5.32], t(47) = 2.06, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.02, 0.95])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.14, 95% CI [-7.22, 0.95], t(47) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.65, 31.45], t(47) = 12.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-6.56, 5.74], t(47) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.78, 95% CI [-1.73, 5.29], t(47) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.56, 95% CI [-2.98, 8.11], t(47) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.62, 15.81], t(47) = 12.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.85], t(47) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [-0.26, 3.47], t(47) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.73])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.10, 95% CI [-5.05, 0.84], t(47) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.62, 17.77], t(47) = 20.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.19], t(47) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.48], t(47) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.70])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.47, 1.25], t(47) = -0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.50, 33.31], t(47) = 17.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-2.84, 6.67], t(47) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.45, 95% CI [-0.10, 5.00], t(47) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.65])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.29, 95% CI [-7.32, 0.74], t(47) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.14, 13.19], t(47) = 47.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.39], t(47) = -0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.04, 2.04], t(47) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.62])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.62], t(47) = -1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.70, 16.68], t(47) = 19.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.05, 2.12], t(47) = 0.03, p = 0.972; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.15, 3.69], t(47) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-6.49, 2.59], t(47) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.39, 15.89], t(47) = 15.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-3.36, 1.53], t(47) = -0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.33], t(47) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.18, 95% CI [-3.89, -0.47], t(47) = -2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.96, -0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.32, 32.35], t(47) = 19.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-5.09, 3.33], t(47) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-2.86, 4.68], t(47) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.68])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.66, 95% CI [-10.60, 1.28], t(47) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.23, 21.96], t(47) = 21.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.33], t(47) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.92], t(47) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.43, 0.78], t(47) = -1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.81, 16.09], t(47) = 25.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.55], t(47) = -0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.34, 1.16], t(47) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.59], t(47) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.70, 13.30], t(47) = 18.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.41, 0.23], t(47) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.32], t(47) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.45, 3.61], t(47) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.13, 11.77], t(47) = 10.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.45, 1.64], t(47) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.28], t(47) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.57, 1.29], t(47) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.32, 12.06], t(47) = 10.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.99, 1.24], t(47) = -1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-3.61, 0.57], t(47) = -1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-2.10, 4.49], t(47) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.73, 9.22], t(47) = 8.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.87, 3.01], t(47) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-0.27, 3.38], t(47) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.84])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.61, 95% CI [-5.48, 0.27], t(47) = -1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.52, 32.71], t(47) = 10.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-8.83, 5.41], t(47) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-4.00, 3.84], t(47) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -6.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-7.47, 4.92], t(47) = -0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 174.797 | 180.708 | -84.398 | 168.797 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 178.093 | 189.914 | -83.046 | 166.093 | 2.704 | 3 | 0.439 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 244.648 | 250.558 | -119.324 | 238.648 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 249.085 | 260.907 | -118.543 | 237.085 | 1.562 | 3 | 0.668 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 301.292 | 307.203 | -147.646 | 295.292 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 305.815 | 317.637 | -146.908 | 293.815 | 1.477 | 3 | 0.688 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 222.247 | 228.158 | -108.123 | 216.247 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 227.090 | 238.912 | -107.545 | 215.090 | 1.157 | 3 | 0.763 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 263.871 | 269.781 | -128.935 | 257.871 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 268.401 | 280.223 | -128.201 | 256.401 | 1.469 | 3 | 0.689 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 254.629 | 260.540 | -124.315 | 248.629 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 258.827 | 270.649 | -123.414 | 246.827 | 1.802 | 3 | 0.615 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 245.477 | 251.388 | -119.739 | 239.477 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 245.654 | 257.475 | -116.827 | 233.654 | 5.824 | 3 | 0.121 |
symptom | null | 3 | 386.438 | 392.349 | -190.219 | 380.438 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 391.783 | 403.605 | -189.892 | 379.783 | 0.654 | 3 | 0.884 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 304.818 | 310.729 | -149.409 | 298.818 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 304.906 | 316.728 | -146.453 | 292.906 | 5.912 | 3 | 0.116 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 325.951 | 331.862 | -159.976 | 319.951 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 324.571 | 336.392 | -156.285 | 312.571 | 7.380 | 3 | 0.061 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 345.826 | 351.737 | -169.913 | 339.826 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 343.922 | 355.743 | -165.961 | 331.922 | 7.904 | 3 | 0.048 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 282.631 | 288.542 | -138.316 | 276.631 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 286.690 | 298.512 | -137.345 | 274.690 | 1.941 | 3 | 0.585 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 327.222 | 333.133 | -160.611 | 321.222 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 329.922 | 341.744 | -158.961 | 317.922 | 3.300 | 3 | 0.348 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 343.743 | 349.654 | -168.871 | 337.743 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 348.754 | 360.575 | -168.377 | 336.754 | 0.989 | 3 | 0.804 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 300.790 | 306.701 | -147.395 | 294.790 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 300.971 | 312.792 | -144.485 | 288.971 | 5.819 | 3 | 0.121 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 268.491 | 274.402 | -131.245 | 262.491 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 272.179 | 284.000 | -130.089 | 260.179 | 2.312 | 3 | 0.510 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 263.075 | 268.986 | -128.538 | 257.075 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 265.859 | 277.681 | -126.930 | 253.859 | 3.216 | 3 | 0.359 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 272.082 | 277.993 | -133.041 | 266.082 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 271.752 | 283.574 | -129.876 | 259.752 | 6.330 | 3 | 0.097 |
els | null | 3 | 330.448 | 336.358 | -162.224 | 324.448 | |||
els | random | 6 | 330.804 | 342.626 | -159.402 | 318.804 | 5.643 | 3 | 0.130 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 386.014 | 391.925 | -190.007 | 380.014 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 387.992 | 399.814 | -187.996 | 375.992 | 4.022 | 3 | 0.259 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 308.865 | 314.776 | -151.433 | 302.865 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 311.404 | 323.226 | -149.702 | 299.404 | 3.461 | 3 | 0.326 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 279.037 | 284.948 | -136.518 | 273.037 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 282.553 | 294.375 | -135.276 | 270.553 | 2.484 | 3 | 0.478 |
shs | null | 3 | 357.934 | 363.845 | -175.967 | 351.934 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 359.549 | 371.371 | -173.775 | 347.549 | 4.385 | 3 | 0.223 |
esteem | null | 3 | 179.558 | 185.469 | -86.779 | 173.558 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 179.415 | 191.237 | -83.708 | 167.415 | 6.143 | 3 | 0.105 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 284.879 | 290.790 | -139.440 | 278.879 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 290.028 | 301.850 | -139.014 | 278.028 | 0.851 | 3 | 0.837 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 287.176 | 293.087 | -140.588 | 281.176 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 285.283 | 297.105 | -136.642 | 273.283 | 7.893 | 3 | 0.048 |
mlq | null | 3 | 353.992 | 359.903 | -173.996 | 347.992 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 356.657 | 368.479 | -172.328 | 344.657 | 3.335 | 3 | 0.343 |
empower | null | 3 | 285.672 | 291.583 | -139.836 | 279.672 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 289.277 | 301.099 | -138.639 | 277.277 | 2.395 | 3 | 0.495 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 251.880 | 257.791 | -122.940 | 245.880 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 257.254 | 269.076 | -122.627 | 245.254 | 0.626 | 3 | 0.890 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 266.520 | 272.431 | -130.260 | 260.520 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 267.403 | 279.225 | -127.702 | 255.403 | 5.117 | 3 | 0.163 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 286.241 | 292.152 | -140.121 | 280.241 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 291.071 | 302.892 | -139.535 | 279.071 | 1.170 | 3 | 0.760 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 301.121 | 307.032 | -147.561 | 295.121 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 304.016 | 315.838 | -146.008 | 292.016 | 3.105 | 3 | 0.376 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 293.258 | 299.169 | -143.629 | 287.258 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 295.322 | 307.144 | -141.661 | 283.322 | 3.936 | 3 | 0.268 |
sss | null | 3 | 397.417 | 403.328 | -195.708 | 391.417 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 402.870 | 414.692 | -195.435 | 390.870 | 0.546 | 3 | 0.909 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 21 | 3.38 ± 1.21 | 22 | 3.50 ± 1.21 | 0.748 | -0.101 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 6 | 4.16 ± 1.31 | -0.664 | 4 | 3.99 ± 1.32 | -0.415 | 0.839 | 0.148 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 21 | 18.43 ± 2.69 | 22 | 18.36 ± 2.69 | 0.937 | 0.066 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 6 | 17.80 ± 1.85 | 0.635 | 4 | 18.58 ± 1.69 | -0.222 | 0.497 | -0.791 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 21 | 30.24 ± 4.73 | 22 | 31.14 ± 4.73 | 0.537 | -0.614 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 6 | 30.74 ± 3.06 | -0.343 | 4 | 31.93 ± 2.74 | -0.545 | 0.524 | -0.816 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 21 | 12.29 ± 2.02 | 22 | 12.32 ± 2.02 | 0.958 | -0.028 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 6 | 11.69 ± 1.73 | 0.506 | 4 | 12.55 ± 1.68 | -0.200 | 0.440 | -0.734 |
ras_goal | 1st | 21 | 17.57 ± 3.14 | 22 | 17.77 ± 3.14 | 0.835 | -0.150 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 6 | 17.68 ± 2.30 | -0.081 | 4 | 16.75 ± 2.15 | 0.765 | 0.518 | 0.696 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 21 | 13.24 ± 3.12 | 22 | 13.64 ± 3.12 | 0.678 | -0.482 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 6 | 13.27 ± 1.94 | -0.036 | 4 | 14.32 ± 1.70 | -0.826 | 0.369 | -1.271 |
ras_domination | 1st | 21 | 10.95 ± 2.29 | 22 | 9.41 ± 2.29 | 0.032 | 0.757 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 6 | 9.99 ± 2.43 | 0.472 | 4 | 11.01 ± 2.45 | -0.787 | 0.521 | -0.502 |
symptom | 1st | 21 | 28.86 ± 10.29 | 22 | 30.45 ± 10.29 | 0.614 | -0.416 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 6 | 27.63 ± 7.12 | 0.318 | 4 | 30.19 ± 6.54 | 0.069 | 0.564 | -0.665 |
slof_work | 1st | 21 | 23.43 ± 5.02 | 22 | 22.55 ± 5.02 | 0.567 | 0.824 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 6 | 21.88 ± 2.97 | 1.446 | 4 | 21.99 ± 2.54 | 0.521 | 0.951 | -0.101 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 21 | 26.95 ± 5.77 | 22 | 25.73 ± 5.77 | 0.490 | 0.774 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 6 | 24.36 ± 3.61 | 1.638 | 4 | 26.76 ± 3.18 | -0.653 | 0.274 | -1.517 |
satisfaction | 1st | 21 | 19.86 ± 6.88 | 22 | 22.55 ± 6.88 | 0.207 | -1.372 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 6 | 22.65 ± 4.35 | -1.427 | 4 | 23.49 ± 3.84 | -0.484 | 0.749 | -0.430 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 21 | 11.14 ± 3.44 | 22 | 12.00 ± 3.44 | 0.418 | -0.338 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 6 | 12.58 ± 3.35 | -0.567 | 4 | 12.79 ± 3.34 | -0.311 | 0.924 | -0.082 |
mhc_social | 1st | 21 | 15.19 ± 5.24 | 22 | 14.68 ± 5.24 | 0.752 | 0.147 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 6 | 18.07 ± 4.81 | -0.829 | 4 | 13.77 ± 4.74 | 0.262 | 0.175 | 1.238 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 21 | 21.57 ± 6.17 | 22 | 22.95 ± 6.17 | 0.466 | -0.305 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 6 | 23.33 ± 6.00 | -0.388 | 4 | 23.21 ± 5.97 | -0.056 | 0.976 | 0.026 |
resilisnce | 1st | 21 | 16.86 ± 4.74 | 22 | 17.05 ± 4.74 | 0.897 | -0.167 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 6 | 17.26 ± 2.87 | -0.353 | 4 | 15.01 ± 2.48 | 1.807 | 0.193 | 1.993 |
social_provision | 1st | 21 | 13.43 ± 3.36 | 22 | 13.91 ± 3.36 | 0.642 | -0.402 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 6 | 12.79 ± 2.28 | 0.533 | 4 | 14.64 ± 2.08 | -0.613 | 0.194 | -1.549 |
els_value_living | 1st | 21 | 16.86 ± 3.05 | 22 | 17.41 ± 3.05 | 0.556 | -0.408 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 6 | 18.12 ± 2.27 | -0.932 | 4 | 17.17 ± 2.13 | 0.174 | 0.510 | 0.697 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 21 | 12.19 ± 3.25 | 22 | 13.91 ± 3.25 | 0.091 | -1.265 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 6 | 13.67 ± 2.36 | -1.091 | 4 | 13.77 ± 2.20 | 0.100 | 0.945 | -0.074 |
els | 1st | 21 | 29.05 ± 5.68 | 22 | 31.32 ± 5.68 | 0.197 | -0.961 | ||
els | 2nd | 6 | 31.78 ± 4.11 | -1.155 | 4 | 30.91 ± 3.83 | 0.172 | 0.737 | 0.366 |
social_connect | 1st | 21 | 27.05 ± 10.28 | 22 | 26.64 ± 10.28 | 0.896 | 0.130 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 6 | 28.83 ± 6.65 | -0.564 | 4 | 30.98 ± 5.93 | -1.375 | 0.596 | -0.682 |
shs_agency | 1st | 21 | 13.71 ± 4.89 | 22 | 14.64 ± 4.89 | 0.540 | -0.547 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 6 | 15.32 ± 3.29 | -0.952 | 4 | 14.14 ± 2.98 | 0.296 | 0.560 | 0.701 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 21 | 16.19 ± 3.68 | 22 | 17.18 ± 3.68 | 0.383 | -0.731 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 6 | 17.18 ± 2.53 | -0.729 | 4 | 17.06 ± 2.32 | 0.087 | 0.942 | 0.085 |
shs | 1st | 21 | 29.90 ± 7.96 | 22 | 31.82 ± 7.96 | 0.435 | -0.836 | ||
shs | 2nd | 6 | 32.36 ± 5.04 | -1.071 | 4 | 30.98 ± 4.46 | 0.368 | 0.652 | 0.603 |
esteem | 1st | 21 | 12.67 ± 1.23 | 22 | 12.32 ± 1.23 | 0.357 | 0.324 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 6 | 13.67 ± 1.30 | -0.930 | 4 | 12.32 ± 1.31 | -0.006 | 0.118 | 1.249 |
mlq_search | 1st | 21 | 15.19 ± 3.49 | 22 | 15.23 ± 3.49 | 0.973 | -0.012 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 6 | 15.96 ± 3.66 | -0.255 | 4 | 14.05 ± 3.69 | 0.393 | 0.425 | 0.636 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 21 | 14.14 ± 4.09 | 22 | 13.23 ± 4.09 | 0.468 | 0.949 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 6 | 14.39 ± 2.47 | -0.260 | 4 | 11.30 ± 2.13 | 2.000 | 0.041 | 3.209 |
mlq | 1st | 21 | 29.33 ± 7.04 | 22 | 28.45 ± 7.04 | 0.685 | 0.252 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 6 | 30.24 ± 5.53 | -0.260 | 4 | 24.70 ± 5.28 | 1.076 | 0.123 | 1.587 |
empower | 1st | 21 | 20.10 ± 4.35 | 22 | 19.82 ± 4.35 | 0.836 | 0.307 | ||
empower | 2nd | 6 | 20.00 ± 2.56 | 0.102 | 4 | 18.90 ± 2.18 | 1.016 | 0.470 | 1.221 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 21 | 14.95 ± 2.66 | 22 | 14.91 ± 2.66 | 0.958 | 0.026 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 6 | 14.36 ± 2.37 | 0.355 | 4 | 15.17 ± 2.32 | -0.158 | 0.597 | -0.487 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 21 | 12.00 ± 3.04 | 22 | 10.41 ± 3.04 | 0.094 | 1.072 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 6 | 10.71 ± 2.37 | 0.867 | 4 | 10.21 ± 2.26 | 0.137 | 0.735 | 0.343 |
sss_affective | 1st | 21 | 9.95 ± 4.26 | 22 | 9.05 ± 4.26 | 0.489 | 0.829 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 6 | 10.01 ± 2.62 | -0.053 | 4 | 8.46 ± 2.29 | 0.533 | 0.328 | 1.416 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 21 | 10.19 ± 4.38 | 22 | 8.82 ± 4.38 | 0.310 | 0.717 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 6 | 8.67 ± 3.24 | 0.793 | 4 | 8.49 ± 3.04 | 0.170 | 0.930 | 0.094 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 21 | 7.48 ± 4.08 | 22 | 8.05 ± 4.08 | 0.650 | -0.342 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 6 | 9.04 ± 2.93 | -0.938 | 4 | 7.00 ± 2.72 | 0.630 | 0.270 | 1.225 |
sss | 1st | 21 | 27.62 ± 11.91 | 22 | 25.91 ± 11.91 | 0.640 | 0.485 | ||
sss | 2nd | 6 | 27.54 ± 7.61 | 0.023 | 4 | 24.55 ± 6.76 | 0.385 | 0.520 | 0.848 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(48.96) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.86)
2st
t(48.38) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.53)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(42.14) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.59)
2st
t(31.56) = 0.69, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.08)
ras_confidence
1st
t(41.80) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.81)
2st
t(36.96) = 0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-2.56 to 4.95)
ras_willingness
1st
t(44.11) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.28)
2st
t(24.15) = 0.79, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.40 to 3.13)
ras_goal
1st
t(42.59) = 0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.13)
2st
t(27.49) = -0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.86 to 1.99)
ras_reliance
1st
t(41.58) = 0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.32)
2st
t(42.07) = 0.91, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-1.29 to 3.39)
ras_domination
1st
t(48.33) = -2.21, p = 0.032, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-2.95 to -0.14)
2st
t(41.20) = 0.65, p = 0.521, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.16 to 4.21)
symptom
1st
t(42.19) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-4.74 to 7.93)
2st
t(30.90) = 0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-6.37 to 11.48)
slof_work
1st
t(41.37) = -0.58, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.97 to 2.21)
2st
t(47.24) = 0.06, p = 0.951, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-3.42 to 3.64)
slof_relationship
1st
t(41.62) = -0.70, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-4.78 to 2.33)
2st
t(40.98) = 1.11, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -1.52, 95% CI (-1.97 to 6.78)
satisfaction
1st
t(41.68) = 1.28, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -1.37, 95% CI (-1.55 to 6.92)
2st
t(39.74) = 0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-4.45 to 6.13)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(46.24) = 0.82, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.97)
2st
t(28.35) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-4.21 to 4.62)
mhc_social
1st
t(45.16) = -0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.73 to 2.71)
2st
t(25.36) = -1.39, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-10.63 to 2.05)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(46.19) = 0.73, p = 0.466, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.41 to 5.17)
2st
t(28.18) = -0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-8.03 to 7.79)
resilisnce
1st
t(41.47) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.73 to 3.11)
2st
t(45.02) = -1.32, p = 0.193, Cohen d = 1.99, 95% CI (-5.68 to 1.18)
social_provision
1st
t(42.07) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.55)
2st
t(32.38) = 1.33, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -1.55, 95% CI (-0.99 to 4.69)
els_value_living
1st
t(42.73) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.43)
2st
t(26.69) = -0.67, p = 0.510, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.85 to 1.96)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(42.51) = 1.73, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.72)
2st
t(28.00) = 0.07, p = 0.945, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.89 to 3.09)
els
1st
t(42.50) = 1.31, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-1.23 to 5.77)
2st
t(28.10) = -0.34, p = 0.737, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-6.08 to 4.35)
social_connect
1st
t(41.79) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-6.74 to 5.92)
2st
t(37.22) = 0.54, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-5.99 to 10.30)
shs_agency
1st
t(42.01) = 0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.93)
2st
t(33.33) = -0.59, p = 0.560, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-5.26 to 2.90)
shs_pathway
1st
t(42.16) = 0.88, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.26)
2st
t(31.32) = -0.07, p = 0.942, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-3.28 to 3.05)
shs
1st
t(41.69) = 0.79, p = 0.435, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-2.99 to 6.81)
2st
t(39.42) = -0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-7.52 to 4.76)
esteem
1st
t(48.17) = -0.93, p = 0.357, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.40)
2st
t(39.67) = -1.60, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.36)
mlq_search
1st
t(48.01) = 0.03, p = 0.973, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.10 to 2.18)
2st
t(38.31) = -0.81, p = 0.425, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-6.72 to 2.89)
mlq_presence
1st
t(41.46) = -0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.44 to 1.61)
2st
t(45.28) = -2.11, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 3.21, 95% CI (-6.05 to -0.14)
mlq
1st
t(43.19) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-5.21 to 3.45)
2st
t(25.01) = -1.59, p = 0.123, Cohen d = 1.59, 95% CI (-12.69 to 1.62)
empower
1st
t(41.35) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.40)
2st
t(47.68) = -0.73, p = 0.470, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-4.14 to 1.94)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(44.67) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.59)
2st
t(24.57) = 0.54, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.30 to 3.92)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(43.12) = -1.71, p = 0.094, Cohen d = 1.07, 95% CI (-3.46 to 0.28)
2st
t(25.20) = -0.34, p = 0.735, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.57 to 2.55)
sss_affective
1st
t(41.55) = -0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.53 to 1.71)
2st
t(42.98) = -0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 1.42, 95% CI (-4.70 to 1.61)
sss_behavior
1st
t(42.67) = -1.03, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-4.07 to 1.32)
2st
t(27.00) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.31 to 3.95)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(42.44) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.08)
2st
t(28.58) = -1.13, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-5.74 to 1.67)
sss
1st
t(41.73) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-9.05 to 5.63)
2st
t(38.49) = -0.65, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-12.28 to 6.31)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(34.56) = 0.69, p = 0.988, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.92)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(9.02) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.77)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(8.70) = 0.78, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.54 to 3.13)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(11.41) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.00)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(9.49) = -1.10, p = 0.597, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-3.12 to 1.07)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(8.50) = 1.18, p = 0.543, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.01)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(25.28) = 1.25, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-1.04 to 4.24)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(9.08) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-6.33 to 5.80)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(8.31) = -0.74, p = 0.960, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.17)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(8.54) = 0.93, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.50 to 3.57)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(8.58) = 0.69, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.19 to 4.08)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(15.64) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.78 to 4.36)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(13.19) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-5.96 to 4.14)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(15.51) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-6.14 to 6.65)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(8.40) = -2.57, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 1.81, 95% CI (-3.86 to -0.22)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(8.96) = 0.88, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.62)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(9.65) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.34 to 1.87)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(9.41) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.26 to 1.99)
els
1st vs 2st
t(9.39) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-4.11 to 3.29)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(8.69) = 1.96, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -1.38, 95% CI (-0.69 to 9.38)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(8.90) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.17 to 2.18)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(9.04) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.26 to 2.02)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(8.60) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.50 to 2.82)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(23.99) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.41)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(22.90) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-5.15 to 2.78)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(8.39) = -2.84, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 2.00, 95% CI (-3.48 to -0.38)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(10.18) = -1.56, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-9.11 to 1.61)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(8.30) = -1.44, p = 0.372, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-2.37 to 0.54)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(12.29) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.19 to 2.72)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(10.09) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.49 to 2.08)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(8.47) = -0.76, p = 0.938, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.34 to 1.17)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(9.58) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.31 to 2.66)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(9.33) = -0.90, p = 0.778, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-3.65 to 1.56)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(8.63) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-6.99 to 4.27)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(27.90) = 1.32, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.99)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(8.88) = -1.11, p = 0.591, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.65)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(8.61) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.41)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(10.86) = -0.90, p = 0.773, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.86)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(9.28) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.83)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(8.43) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.12)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(21.20) = -0.90, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.25)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(8.93) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-6.20 to 3.75)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(8.27) = -2.51, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 1.45, 95% CI (-2.96 to -0.14)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(8.47) = -2.85, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 1.64, 95% CI (-4.67 to -0.52)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(8.51) = 2.49, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -1.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 5.36)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(14.17) = 1.04, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.53 to 4.40)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(12.28) = 1.50, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-1.30 to 7.05)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(14.07) = 0.71, p = 0.980, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-3.56 to 7.07)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(8.34) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.88)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(8.83) = -0.93, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.91)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(9.41) = 1.64, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.99)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(9.21) = 1.92, p = 0.174, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-0.26 to 3.23)
els
1st vs 2st
t(9.20) = 2.03, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (-0.31 to 5.76)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(8.60) = 0.98, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-2.34 to 5.90)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(8.77) = 1.66, p = 0.263, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.80)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(8.90) = 1.28, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.74)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(8.52) = 1.87, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-0.55 to 5.45)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(20.27) = 1.77, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.18)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(19.50) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.55 to 4.09)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(8.34) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.52)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(9.85) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-3.50 to 5.31)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(8.26) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.10)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(11.57) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.44)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(9.78) = -1.53, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-3.16 to 0.59)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(8.40) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.50)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(9.35) = -1.40, p = 0.390, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.97 to 0.93)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(9.14) = 1.65, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.58 to 3.70)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(8.55) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-4.69 to 4.53)